BCGS vs. ACWV
BCGS (Bancreek Global Select ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. BCGS is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCGS charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.
Performance
BCGS vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BCGS
- 1D
- -1.03%
- 1M
- -2.24%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ACWV
- 1D
- 0.82%
- 1M
- 0.81%
- 6M
- 2.67%
- YTD
- 3.64%
- 1Y
- 6.12%
- 3Y*
- 9.83%
- 5Y*
- 5.48%
- 10Y*
- 6.99%
BCGS vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BCGS Bancreek Global Select ETF | 7.30% |
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 0.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCGS and ACWV is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 9, 2026 | 0.39 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BCGS vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank
BCGS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ACWV
BCGS vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bancreek Global Select ETF (BCGS) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BCGS | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.14 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.97 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2.75 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCGS vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCGS drawdown since its inception was -7.43%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCGS and ACWV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCGS | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.43% | -28.82% | +21.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -6.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -7.56% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.14% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -28.82% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.52% | -1.70% | -1.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.21% | -3.11% | +0.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.23% | — |
Volatility
BCGS vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCGS | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.29% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.28% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.04% | 8.05% | +13.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.04% | 10.28% | +11.76% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.04% | 12.29% | +9.75% |
BCGS vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCGS has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCGS vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison
BCGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 1.94% | 2.09% | 2.33% | 2.41% | 2.18% | 1.92% | 1.77% | 2.54% | 2.32% | 2.04% | 2.56% | 2.28% |
BCGS Bancreek Global Select ETF | 0.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCGS and ACWV have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCGS.
ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.44% for BCGS.
They also come from different issuers: Bancreek and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCGS and 0.20% for ACWV.
Find the right allocation for BCGS and ACWV
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer